Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1243 (JHR)

Moullshree v. State of Jharkhand

2014-12-12

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2014
Order The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.10.2010 issued by the District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Simdega by which the contractual appointment of the petitioner has been terminated w.e.f. 1.11.2010. 2. Heard the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on 5.1.2008. Her selection has been made by the selection committee presided over by the Deputy Commissioner, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Simdega on consolidated amount of Rs.8,000/-. The petitioner was discharging her duty without any complaint, but all of a sudden her contract has been decided to be rescinded vide office order dated 25.10.2010 contained in memo no.759 issued by the District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Simdega. 4. The petitioner, while assailing the order dated 25.10.2010, has submitted that the District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Simdega has got no jurisdiction to rescind the contract of the petitioner, since the petitioner has been appointed by the decision of the Selection Committee presided over by the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega. Hence, the order dated 25.10.2010 is without any jurisdiction. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-State has submitted that the District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Simdega is only communicating authority of decision taken by the selection committee. The selection committee, on the basis of the serious irregularities of taking work from the girls in the residence of the petitioner, has come to the conclusion that the contract of the petitioner is not fit to be extended. 6. After hearing the parties and perusing the procedure of appointment dated 6.8.2005 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit), it appears that the procedure has been given for taking decision of extension or cancellation of the contract which is to be taken by the selection committee. The ground of the petitioner that the District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Simdega has issued the order dated 25.10.2010, as such he has got no jurisdiction, I find that the said argument has got no force in view of the fact that in the order dated 25.10.2010 it has been referred that it is the selection committee which has taken decision not to extend the contract. The decision was taken to rescind the contract of the petitioner on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Block Education Extension Officer and Block Programme Officer relating to taking personal work from the girls in the residence of the petitioner. 7. The petitioner, admittedly, was on contract appointment. The contractual appointment is subject to extension by the competent authority. If the service of the contractual appointment is found not to be satisfactory in view of the authorities concerned, the authorities can come to the conclusion for cancellation of contract. Here in this case the authorities have come to conclusion for cancellation of contract on the basis of the enquiry report of Block Education Extension Officer and Block Programme Officer relating to taking the girls in the residence of the petitioner for taking personal work which has duly been considered by the Selection committee. The District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Simdega has only communicated the same in terms of office order dated 25.10.2010. 8. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.